# "Fury" WW2-era tank movie remake stars Brad Pitt, Shia Lebeouf



## CougarKing

"Kelly's Heroes" or "the Battle of the Bulge", anyone?  ;D

Movie Web



> David Ayer has unveiled the first photo from his war drama Fury. Brad Pitt, Shia LaBeouf, Logan Lerman, Michael Peña and Jon Bernthal star in the film, *which centers on a five-man Sherman tank crew that are tasked with a deadly mission at the tail end of World War II. * Check them all out in this first look.
> 
> Fury comes to theaters *November 14th, 2014* and stars Brad Pitt, Shia LaBeouf, Logan Lerman, Michael Peña, Scott Eastwood. The film is directed by David Ayer.


----------



## GPComd

Tank movie?  Dang I was hoping for some "Sgt Fury and his Howling Commandos" action.  

The image from the link looks more like a diorama/model/painting than something made with real people.

I wonder what the 'Deadly Mission" will be.....break into a bank and liberate a bunch of gold bars?


----------



## larry Strong

GPComd said:
			
		

> Tank movie?  Dang I was hoping for some "Sgt Fury and his Howling Commandos" action.
> 
> The image from the link looks more like a diorama/model/painting than something made with real people.
> 
> I wonder what the 'Deadly Mission" will be.....break into a bank and liberate a bunch of gold bars?



Always with the negative waves, Moriarty ... Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change   ;D Woof Woof


----------



## my72jeep

" You zzz the American Army" "No Baby we ain't"


----------



## CougarKing

GPComd said:
			
		

> I wonder what the 'Deadly Mission" will be.....break into a bank *DRIVING A TIGER TANK* and liberate a bunch of gold bars?



There, fixed that for you.  ;D


----------



## Jed

Sgt Fury was infantry. Jeb Stuart was the tank crew commander for a Stuart tank. If I recall my comic books correctly.


----------



## cupper

Is it Michael Peña or Adam Beech?  ;D


----------



## jollyjacktar

Official trailer's out.  Looks good.  Fury


----------



## Old EO Tech

Looks like a good movie....you will just have to ignore Hollywood making a Sherman into an awesome Tiger killing machine, when in fact only vast numbers of Shermans made them effective at all....but seeing 15 Shermans being destroyed for every Tiger doesn't make for an A list movie in the US


----------



## dimsum

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> Looks like a good movie....you will just have to ignore Hollywood making a Sherman into an awesome Tiger killing machine, when in fact only vast numbers of Shermans made them effective at all....but seeing 15 Shermans being destroyed for every Tiger doesn't make for an A list movie in the US



And to be honest, "Fury" sounds better than "Tommy Cooker".  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_cooker


----------



## Retired AF Guy

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Official trailer's out.  Looks good.  Fury



I noticed the "hero's" tank has a muzzle brake on it which would indicate a Sherman Firefly. My understanding is that the Americans newer used the Firefly, only the Commonwealth countries.


----------



## CougarKing

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> I noticed the "hero's" tank has a muzzle brake on it which would indicate a Sherman Firefly. My understanding is that the Americans newer used the Firefly, only the Commonwealth countries.



Didn't they use an up-gunned variant of the Sherman, called M4A3E8 "Easy Eight", that had a 76mm gun? And wasn't there also an up-armoured version called the "Jumbo Sherman"? I would have thought that could have lowered the US Sherman vs. Tiger killing ratio. 

And why is it there hasn't been a movie yet that focuses on crews of tank destroyers? I've yet to see the US M10 Wolverine or British Achilles tank destroyer in a feature movie.

Anyways here's more movie posters for the upcoming "Fury" movie:








https://www.yahoo.com/movies/brad-pitt-returns-to-war-in-the-first-fury-89765347697.html


----------



## 2ndChoiceName

The Tiger was better armed and armoured, but I believe the Sherman was far more maneuverable. It's plausible that they could get around the Sherman's inferiority in the film by having them out-maneuver Tigers in order to kill them. That also seems more of a hero-style way of doing things as opposed to sitting there slinging shells at one another.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Didn't they use an up-gunned variant of the Sherman, called M4A38 "Easy Eight", that had a 76mm gun? And wasn't there also an up-armoured version called the "Jumbo Sherman"? I would have thought that could have lowered the US Sherman vs. Tiger killing ratio.



You are correct, the M4A38 entered US service in late '44. From what I was able to find there are other variants of the Sherman in US service that also used a 76mm gun, however, all the different designations is kind of confusing, especially after a long day and a couple of beer.  ;D  

May try to sort it all out tomorrow.


----------



## George Wallace

Some articles on the making of the movie:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2439334/Brad-Pitt-turns-English-countryside-warzone-location-Shirburn-new-film-Fury-Shia-LaBeouf.html


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fury_(2014_film)

First videos out on the making of the film: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/first-look-at-brad-pitt-shia-labeouf-and-logan-lerman-in-new-film-fury-9532249.html


----------



## Fishbone Jones

S.M.A. said:
			
		

>



Real tankers don't lean or sit on the gun or its mantlet


----------



## Journeyman

More out of curiosity since I don't know, but did the US Army have mixed-colour tank crews in 1945?


----------



## Old EO Tech

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> You are correct, the M4A38 entered US service in late '44. From what I was able to find there are other variants of the Sherman in US service that also used a 76mm gun, however, all the different designations is kind of confusing, especially after a long day and a couple of beer.  ;D
> 
> May try to sort it all out tomorrow.



The real Tiger killer would have been the M26 Pershing, with the 90mm gun, but it came to late in the war to be a factor.  Germany had lost the war already by the time it came along.  There were a couple Tiger vs Pershing engagements...but not on mass.


----------



## brihard

Dammit. Must play World of Tanks now.

Incidentally, anyone who doesn't play World of Tanks is seriously missing out.


----------



## Robert0288

How have we not played WoT yet?  Then again I'm disappearing for 4 months... Right in time for this movie to come out.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Journeyman said:
			
		

> More out of curiosity since I don't know, but did the US Army have mixed-colour tank crews in 1945?



No.  There were a few segregated (black) tank battalions that it to Europe.  Wilt Chamberlain had written a book about his Dad, who served in one of those Battalions.


----------



## Journeyman

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> No.  There were a few segregated (black) tank battalions that it to Europe.  Wilt Chamberlain had written a book about his Dad, who served in one of those Battalions.


Thanks.  

I'd just watched Red Tails again, and the Cuba Gooding Jr/Rob't DeNiro USN Clearance Diver movie again (too lazy to search title) a while back, so was curious.


----------



## dimsum

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Thanks.
> 
> I'd just watched Red Tails again



Again?  How did you get through the first viewing without facepalming so hard it left a permanent imprint?


----------



## vonGarvin

This is an "Easy 8".  It had a 76mm gun, and was capable of destroying a Pz VI E ("Tiger"), from the front at normal ranges.  It was rather vulnerable to the Tiger at longer ranges, however.  I'm guessing that "Fury" is an Easy 8.  

Other M4A1 shermans had 76mm guns as well:






As stated previously, the Sherman's advantage over the Tiger was its mobility.  The Tiger's advantage was its firepower and protection.  

And though WoT is awesome to play (just finished a round with my Tiger, by the way  ;D), to truly gain the experience of how to use US Armor (sic) in the war, play Flames of War.  

It's best to bait the Tigers with your shermans, and then unleash a stream of fire from your Tank Destroyers that have crept into position.  It truly takes a combined arms effort to do them in.  

I doubt that this movie will show that, but I'm probably going to go see it.  Because tanks!


----------



## Franko

Brihard said:
			
		

> Incidentally, anyone who doesn't play World of Tanks is seriously missing out.



Those that can, do.

Those that can't, play World of Tanks.    

As for Sherman's able to take out Tigers one on one, there was also the Sherman IC and VC variants that had the range and the armament. Bad part was the armour on the Sherman's. It was paper thin in comparison and crews were relegated to "shoot and scoot" tactics or outright ambushing them.

Regards


----------



## Old Sweat

To oversimplify the issue, the Sherman was an outstanding tank in 1942, but its design was sealed circa 1943 to facilitate mass production. Thus, there were lots of tanks that did well at El Alamein available in Normandy facing tanks like the later production Panzer IVs and Panthers and even a few Tigers. (Only three Tiger battalions fought in Normandy - all against the British and Canadians - and most of these were lost to breakdowns and lack of fuel.)


----------



## CougarKing

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> (Only three Tiger battalions fought in Normandy - all against the British and Canadians -



Panzer ace Michael Wittman's Tiger was among them, right?


----------



## Franko

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Panzer ace Michael Wittman's Tiger was among them, right?



A sloppy commander at best. A more competent commander was Otto Carius and of course Kurt Knispel. 

Most of Wittmans kills were anti tank guns and not tanks.


----------



## Old Sweat

Nerf herder said:
			
		

> A sloppy commander at best. A more competent commander was Otto Carius and of course Kurt Knispel.
> 
> Most of Wittmans kills were anti tank guns and not tanks.



After my book on Normandy, which included an appendix on Wittmann's death, appeared, I was contacted by a couple of German Panzer officers who were appalled at the adulation afforded Wittmann. They considered him a mediocre officer at best. I share their opinion, but the damage has been done.

NH is right in that the majority of his kills were anti-tank guns and even at Villers-Bocage, which was turned into a propaganda orgy by the Nazis, he only destroyed four gun tanks (three of which were parked and one of which was trying to sneak up on him) out of the total of umpteen AFVs credited to him. Incidentally all the legitimate kills by the other tanks of his company (approximately a squadron plus) were all credited to him by the commander of 1 SS Panzer Corps in his recommendation for the Knight's Cross with Swords.


----------



## vonGarvin

Herr Carius is still among the living.  He's a pharmacist.  Here is his website.

You can order a signed copy of his book, "Tiger im Schlamm" ("Tigers in the mud") and have it mailed to your home for 30,00 Euro.


----------



## Franko

General Disorder said:
			
		

> Herr Carius is still among the living.  He's a pharmacist.  Here is his website.
> 
> You can order a signed copy of his book, "Tiger im Schlamm" ("Tigers in the mud") and have it mailed to your home for 30,00 Euro.



Went to his Apothacarie the last time I was in Germany to do just that. He wasn't working that weekend though. At least I got to see some awesome German countryside.


----------



## dangerboy

General Disorder said:
			
		

> Herr Carius is still among the living.  He's a pharmacist.  Here is his website.
> 
> You can order a signed copy of his book, "Tiger im Schlamm" ("Tigers in the mud") and have it mailed to your home for 30,00 Euro.



It is a great book, if you have not read it I highly recommend it.  Amazon has it for a good price right now http://www.amazon.ca/Tigers-Mud-Otto-Carius/dp/0811729117/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1404052274&sr=8-1&keywords=tigers+in+the+mud/ unfortunately not signed. 

_edit to fix link_


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The earlier Sherman's were not that noted for their crosscountry ability, the power to weight ratio and ground pressure was not great. Apparently the tiger 1 was a pleasure to drive and fairly reliable design. the Panther suffered greatly from it's final drive and was a total bitch to replace. hat design was improved upon but never completely. Not helped by French worker sabotage (Littlefields crew found cig butts in the drive they rebuilt) or by the material quality available to the Germans.


----------



## CougarKing

Has anyone else here watched "Fury" yet? It should have been out in theatres here in Canada for the past 2-3 weeks already.

I liked "Fury", especially the Tiger vs. 4 Shermans scene. 

I would have preferred though that US/Allied tank destroyers such as the M10 Wolverine/Achilles get more exposure in today's movies though, since I didn't see any in this movie, nor in the "Band of Brothers" series.  

There were also a couple of M8 Greyhound Scout cars guarding the US outpost in another scene.

The recent TV movie "Saints and Soldiers: The Void" that came out this year is supposed to be set around the story of 2 US M18 Hellcat tank destroyer crews.

Trailer for the other movie:
"Saints and Soldiers: the Void"


----------



## dangerboy

I saw it and thought it was well done, especially the Sherman vs. Tiger scene that you mentioned.  Of course we need to hear from one of our Tango call signs to hear what they thought.  The part I am not sure about was the middle scene when they had lunch, that was just strange and threw me off (off course it was probably intended to).


----------



## Danjanou

Saw it last week, not too bad. The battle sequences including the Tiger vs a platoon of Shermans are well done and for the most part fairly realistic I thought.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Saw "Fury" this afternoon with two friends with serious military history knowledge.  Reaction: good machinery, much unrealistic action, much dead boring.  

I would compare with the 1956 US Army movie "Attack", most unglorious for its time, which I saw age 9 and has stayed with me:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0048966/

"Attack" deals with moral matters, of command in particular, that "Fury" briefly raises then runs from for more rounds fired.  Intermittently until the end when a--very young--SS soldier actually saves Machine's life.  But these moments give no cause for real reflection.  As if they simply should be raised, don't you know--but more rounds, man.  And mud and dirt.  War is hell, don't you know.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## vonGarvin

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> Looks like a good movie....you will just have to ignore Hollywood making a Sherman into an awesome Tiger killing machine, when in fact only vast numbers of Shermans made them effective at all....but seeing 15 Shermans being destroyed for every Tiger doesn't make for an A list movie in the US


Having seen the movie and knowing a thing or two about both tanks, what happened in the film is entirely plausible.  
The Sherman that Wardaddy Collier commands is an M4A3E8, which was faster than the Tiger by far, better armoured than the earlier version of the Sherman (but not by much), had better ammo stowage ("Wet" ammo storage), which reduced catastrophic explosions due to fire by a significant amount, and had even the suspension was better than earlier versions.  It also had stabilizers, allowing for more accurate fire on the move.
It was also armed with a 76mm High velocity cannon, with its HVAP rounds, able to deal with Tigers.


----------



## vonGarvin

dangerboy said:
			
		

> The part I am not sure about was the middle scene when they had lunch, that was just strange and threw me off (off course it was probably intended to).


For me, that part was key in the movie.  Wardaddy just wanted a sense of normality in his life, and to go with the "daddy" part, to help Machine become a man.  I sensed that he was longing for home, as it were.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Here is a excellent film on the cross country capabilities of tanks, had the Germans been able to solve the Final drive issues on the Panther it would have been a excellent tank.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmXEly5_u38


----------



## daftandbarmy

I thought it was probably one of the best movies around related to the experiences in NW Europe following D Day. A buddy who served as a USMC tank platoon commander thought the same, and forgave the movie it's shortcomings related to accurately portraying tank platoon tactics stuff. Based on my dad's accounts, they certainly nailed the allies' feelings about the SS and how they dealt with them. 

Two odd things though:

The religious stuff. I don't know if they were just laying that on thick for the audience, or if it was a feature of US tank crew life. It just kind of creeped me out.

Humour, general lack of.


----------



## CougarKing

Colin P said:
			
		

> Here is a excellent film on the cross country capabilities of tanks, had the Germans been able to solve the Final drive issues on the Panther it would have been a excellent tank.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmXEly5_u38



The Panther seemed to have been good enough for another panzer commander named Ernst Barkmann who killed 9 Shermans single-handedly in one encounter during the Normandy campaign. Plus more in conjunction with his unit.




> During that brave engagement often called "Barkmann's Corner", Ernst Barkmann destroyed approximately nine Sherman tanks and many other various vehicles.
> 
> 
> (...SNIPPED)
> 
> On July 28th, Barkmann reached Coutances and joined the rest of his Kompanie. During two day period, he destroyed fifteen Shermans and other vehicles.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Panther suffered 3 flaws, poor final drive, inability to quickly exchange the drive and poor ammo storage. Other than that it was a damm good tank.


----------



## MilEME09

Colin P said:
			
		

> Panther suffered 3 flaws, poor final drive, inability to quickly exchange the drive and poor ammo storage. Other than that it was a damm good tank.



I would add, just like the Tiger Series, a Mechanical nightmare to do repairs on, I remember reading articles that to replace a torsion bar, they would have to remove two outside road wheels, plus the inside road wheel, then get into a crawl space and disconnect it. Sounds like a maintainer in the German army must of really hated his life in my opinion.

On the movie side of things I saw the movie yesterday, and I found the tank warfare part fairly realistic such as an 88 going right through a Sherman, but other aspects like the amazing number of shots the EZ8 Sherman took and survived were more plot Armour to help the story then anything else, my and those with me ( a mix of techs and armoured) counted at least 6 times "fury" should of went sky high but didn't. I also have to say its the goriest war movie I've seen in recent memory but does its job well at telling a story that is realistic and connects on a both emotional and psychological level, maybe not with most civi's but many of us shed a tear or two at the end for how they portrayed the final moments of the crew, well all except machine.


----------



## vonGarvin

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> On the movie side of things I saw the movie yesterday, and I found the tank warfare part fairly realistic such as an 88 going right through a Sherman, but other aspects like the amazing number of shots the EZ8 Sherman took and survived were more plot Armour to help the story then anything else, my and those with me ( a mix of techs and armoured) counted at least 6 times "fury" should of went sky high but didn't. I also have to say its the goriest war movie I've seen in recent memory but does its job well at telling a story that is realistic and connects on a both emotional and psychological level, maybe not with most civi's but many of us shed a tear or two at the end for how they portrayed the final moments of the crew, well all except machine.


It got slammed twice in that engagement, both at highly oblique angles: one off the side and one off the bow.  Not impossible, maybe only improbable.


----------



## jollyjacktar

I would have thought the Tiger crew would have identified Fury as the biggest threat and engaged them first.  As well in the final battle scenes the SS troops would have swarmed the with the Panzerfausts early on in.  (In reality,  that is)


----------



## vonGarvin

There was an M4A1 76mm Sherman there in the rear.  I guess hitting the rear vehicle was an acceptable tactic.  I think that was the 76mm Sherman.  But yeah, after that, I'm pretty sure they would have marked the longer-barreled Sherman as the bigger threat.  But meh.  It was April 1945.  The good crews had migrated to the King Tiger by then.  Maybe this was an ersatz crew....
:dunno:


----------



## jollyjacktar

Would have ruined the story line by killing them earlier than they did, l suppose.   It didn't spoil the movie for me at any rate.


----------



## CougarKing

General Disorder said:
			
		

> It was April 1945.  The good crews had migrated to the King Tiger by then.



Or tank destroyers like the Jagdtiger. Otto Carius and his crew later went to the Jagdtiger.

I find it interesting to read that most German tank destroyer crews were from the Heer's artillery branch, though a number were just panzer crews who were re-assigned.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

He blamed the high mechanical failure rate on poorly trained drivers. Apparently he destroyed a Sherman by firing the 12.8cm gun through the house it was hiding behind. He felt that had they had the JT a year earlier it would have made a difference as the crews were better back then.


----------



## vonGarvin

That was one of the first uses of the JagdTiger.  From the AAR (which I read in a book, not online, hence no reference link), the US force couldn't determine the location of the firing TDs, but raced for cover behind a house or barn.  Then a tank was hit and destroyed by a shell fired through the building.  The JagdTigers were over a mile away and were deadly accurate.

And yes, if that beast were in the hands of the Wehrmacht in numbers say in early 1944, prior to losing over 1,000,000 combat effective strength in the East and in the West, then maybe it would have delayed the Soviets a bit longer.


----------



## CougarKing

General Disorder said:
			
		

> And yes, if that beast were in the hands of the Wehrmacht in numbers say in early 1944, prior to losing over 1,000,000 combat effective strength in the East and in the West, then maybe it would have delayed the Soviets a bit longer.



What if the dreaded Maus tank had been introduced earlier and had been mass produced beyond the 2-3 prototypes expended in combat?

Fortunately for the allies, in spite of the array of arguably superior tanks and tank destroyers the Germans had from the Panther to the Tiger II, wouldn't it be clear that the allies' air superiority and superior numbers of Shermans/Fireflies and Cromwells created by their combined manufacturing output (US-UK/Commonwealth nations) ultimately won out?


----------



## Kilo_302

I thought the movie was pretty dismal to be honest. The Germans seemed hopelessly incompetent in every scene. I'll preface by saying I have zero military experience, so the below are just observations I'm making based on having studied all things military in university and just generally having an unhealthy interest in military affairs. I'd be interested in getting opinions from people here who have more firsthand knowledge. At first glance, the movie seemed like a crock to me at least.

In the first part of the movie, Fury and a few other tanks accompanied by infantry move through a town. At one point, a bunch of German infantry armed with rifles open up from the second floor of a house about 30m directly on front of Fury, which is in the lead. Of course they're immediately wiped out. Why wouldn't they have waited until the tanks were immediately below? The Shermans wouldn't have been able to engage with their main guns so for a few moments at least it would have been a straight infantry fight. I know that there were plenty of poorly trained conscripts at this point, but it still seemed like an overly dumb move.

In the same town a few moments later, Fury rounds a corner and about 20m away is a German AT gun (it looked like a 75 but it was hard to tell). The Germans hit Fury almost right away(though not quickly enough , and then gun crew seems to be frantically adjusting their aim despite the fact that the target is 20 yards away and clearly about to hit them with HE and MG. A good crew would be able to get another round off in just a few seconds (though I suppose it's possible they were trying to hit a more vulnerable part of the tank). Also, even a 50mm round at that close range would have a great chance at penetrating the frontal armour of a Sherman, even the late models.

The final crossroads scene was ridiculous. The approaching SS battalion are clearly seen with numerous Panzerfausts on their shoulders, and yet when they're engaged by Fury it takes quite awhile (hard to tell with the time scale of the movie as it's almost immediatly dark in the next scene, but probably 10 minutes) to get any of them in the fight. Fury is hit with a couple at close range, and one crew member is killed. The Germans then resort to human wave style attacks at night, against an unsupported immobile tank and somehow they can't kill it. Predictably, we're treated to 10 minutes of hapless Germans being machine gunned as they insist on running back and forth across the road right on front of Fury. At one point, Brad Pitt tosses smoke out of the tank so he can grab extra ammo from the .30 on the top of the tank. He's basically obscured his own crew's fields of fire, and somehow the "crack" SS aren't able to take advantage of this. At this point not a single German has even attempted to go around behind the tank and hit it with a Panzerfaust. There are hedgerows on both sides, and still the Germans insist on charging head on into MG fire. Then there's an intrepid German sniper who starts low crawling to within 30m of the tank despite the fact that he could probably hit anyone sticking their head out of the hatch at far further distances


----------



## Fishbone Jones

It's an action flick. It's not supposed to make sense.


----------



## Kilo_302

Yeah but I'm at work and bored so... ;D


----------



## cupper

Smithsonian Channel has a "Making of" running now. It was very interesting to watch, even without having seen the actual movie yet.

http://www.smithsonianchannel.com/sc/web/show/3415077/tanks-of-fury

All of the real tanks in the film were part of the collection from the Bovington Tank Museum, including the only running Tiger in the world. They would only permit the Tiger to be filmed for one day, and they had to build a concrete pad to run it on for fear of it being damaged during filming. Everyone was impressed with how well it did perform during the shoot.

A lot of the scenes where close-up filming on the deck of the tanks was done using replicas built on a more modern tank chassis with decking to allow film crew to move around the tank as it moved along itself.

Most of the Tigers seen in the film were a combination of replica Tiger on a smaller tank chassis with the tracks, running gear and suspension added in via CGI.

If you get the chance to see it I highly recommend watching it.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> What if the dreaded Maus tank had been introduced earlier and had been mass produced beyond the 2-3 prototypes expended in combat?
> 
> Fortunately for the allies, in spite of the array of arguably superior tanks and tank destroyers the Germans had from the Panther to the Tiger II, wouldn't it be clear that the allies' air superiority and superior numbers of Shermans/Fireflies and Cromwells created by their combined manufacturing output (US-UK/Commonwealth nations) ultimately won out?



As mentioned it would have delayed the inevitable. They should have stopped those super heavies and concentrated fixing the issues with the Panther's final drive DM for DM the Panther was the best bang for their buck with a small numbers of JT's for killing the big Russian heavies. Plus the French might have kept their Panthers for longer post war and perhaps even built further versions of it. The Tiger 1 was supposed to be an excellent tank and well loved by it's crews, except that it was expensive and took to long to build.


----------



## MilEME09

Colin P said:
			
		

> As mentioned it would have delayed the inevitable. They should have stopped those super heavies and concentrated fixing the issues with the Panther's final drive DM for DM the Panther was the best bang for their buck with a small numbers of JT's for killing the big Russian heavies. Plus the French might have kept their Panthers for longer post war and perhaps even built further versions of it. The Tiger 1 was supposed to be an excellent tank and well loved by it's crews, except that it was expensive and took to long to build.



Not to mention the Tiger II didn't have a powerful enough engine to run it, there are a lot of "If's" with WWII for example what if Hitler didn't order the Me-262 to be redigned as a fighter-bomber, and it stayed an interceptor allowing it to be deployed in 1943?

We could have a debate until we are old and grey about the what ifs of WWII but thats for another thread i suspect


----------



## vonGarvin

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> I thought the movie was pretty dismal to be honest. The Germans seemed hopelessly incompetent in every scene. I'll preface by saying I have zero military experience,



This is where I stopped reading.


In April 1945, most of the German Army was a rag-tag group of fanatics fighting on because...they had no other option and the thought of a defeated Germany was anathema to them.

As an amateur history buff of World War 2 and as a professional soldier, the Germans in the movie seemed about right for that time of the war.  Except maybe the final scene at the cross roads, but that, my friend, is Hollywood.  (And as far as other war movies go, it wasn't that bad)


----------



## daftandbarmy

General Disorder said:
			
		

> This is where I stopped reading.
> 
> 
> In April 1945, most of the German Army was a rag-tag group of fanatics fighting on because...they had no other option and the thought of a defeated Germany was anathema to them.
> 
> As an amateur history buff of World War 2 and as a professional soldier, the Germans in the movie seemed about right for that time of the war.  Except maybe the final scene at the cross roads, but that, my friend, is Hollywood.  (And as far as other war movies go, it wasn't that bad)



My biggest beef was that they made the US Infantry look like a bunch of goofs.... like that cheesy hand to hand fight scene in front of the treeline. WTF?

'Passchendaele' was better than that!  :nod:


----------



## jollyjacktar

cupper said:
			
		

> Smithsonian Channel has a "Making of" running now. It was very interesting to watch, even without having seen the actual movie yet.
> 
> http://www.smithsonianchannel.com/sc/web/show/3415077/tanks-of-fury
> 
> If you get the chance to see it I highly recommend watching it.



I just finished watching the program, thank you.  It was very interesting and informative.


----------



## vonGarvin

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> My biggest beef was that they made the US Infantry look like a bunch of goofs.... like that cheesy hand to hand fight scene in front of the treeline. WTF?
> 
> 'Passchendaele' was better than that!  :nod:


You're one up on me. I've not watched Passchendaele.


----------

