RC Tank Warfare community hobby forum

Yes, seen FURY.
Enjoyed it, as did the wife. We have both been to places if not exactly there-historically similar to.....
Felt frustration, boredom, aprehension, hope, fright, anger, disbelief, revenge............

Apparently close to the emotions that the average person would be expected to feel if they were in the exact same situation...............but allowing for the fact I was NOT faced with the same situation, and that the situational presence I was supposed to feel was that as acted out by others I knew were not similarly exposed, it was altogether both entertaining as well as poigniant.
Far more realistic than Private Ryan(admittedly with the benefit of hindsight) , it was well and truely a development of character, story, and situational involvement than most contemporary war movies of its kind.
Questionable tactics aside(how would YOU go against a Tiger without 70 years of beneficial hindsight?) the majority of the armoured clashes were it seems accurate, the poor shooting of the Germman AT guns also put down to youth, resource and poor training ( as I am sure did happen) with the historical dedication of those allied troops at this stage in the war were only there to "get it done & go home" no matter what the neccessity.

Well worth seeing, and with the home theatre system I have, cant wait to see it on Blue Ray !!!

Rocketman wrote: Old Brad

A 50 year old commanding a tank. But the movie seemed to be about Brad Pitt and his hair more than anything else.

It was cool to see the real tanks and the battles were well done and the guy who made it clearly did some research with real tank men. But, there is a bit butt. Where it really falls down is it just doesn't match up with some of the experiences you can read about German armoured units in the west - what was left of them anyway. The first sign of any German armour the US would back off and call in the 9th AF or 2nd TAF to deal with it. They'd even call them in on already disabled tanks. I'd have also gone with a King Tiger, PanzerIV, StugIII or Panther which were more likely to be around than a Tiger 1. Granted finding a working one of these would have meant going to France where film makers don't get tax breaks for anything other than French language films.

What oh why they didn't make a film about The Tank War:

Now that is a story worth telling and not made up either. It would make an even better TV series. Band of Brothers is about a bunch of guys fighting for 10 minutes, these guys fought for 6 years in every western theatre.

This is not regarding the film "fury",
But for those who may not have seen the anti war film, "cross of iron".
I can highly recommend it. + "das boot".
These are not gung ho American type films.
but excellent in their own right.
Cheers Wads.

Seen the movie. Is it me or is the Fury crew just a bit too undisciplined and rowdy?? I guess they made it that way so that the movie would be interesting, but soldiers should be more proffessional than that or command and control starts to break down?

I also found that whole scene with war daddy and norman having breakfast with 2 frauleins a little contrived and unrealistic. I didnt know palm reading could lead do that...

However, that tank duel with the tiger was great! The movie should have had more of that. I also enjoyed the first scene in the movie showing the tank carnage after the battle. That silhoutte of a panther tank beside Fury made me smile...

wadsworthj wrote:This is not regarding the film "fury",
But for those who may not have seen the anti war film, "cross of iron".
I can highly recommend it. + "das boot".
These are not gung ho American type films.
but excellent in their own right.
Cheers Wads.

Das boot is one of the greatest war films ever made.

Yeah I found it kinda hard to believe that they would go after the Tiger the way they did KNOWING what those things did to Shermans, Here I found the proper movie clip ..... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xyh-JpWdGmQ


I have a question for all those UK members and I mean no dis-respect so please don't think that i'm just trying to understand comments I've read regarding how us Americans "single handedly won the war". Who said this? If you're going to point your finger at Hollywood why bother? Hollywood is HORRIBLE for telling the truth! I mean I know you guys aren't local but even you all should know that Hollywood is all about one thing, MAKING MONEY! Truth doesn't even come in at a distant second!

I haven't seen the movie yet, though inevitably I will.

Why do Hollywood war movies always show the US as 'perfect heroes'?

I know someone who was in close contact with the US movie industry (I trust her word, she happens to be my daughter). What she told me made perfect sense. If anyone wants to make a movie that requires the co-operation of the US Defence authorities, eg making use of ships, tanks or anything else for that matter, then it is usually the case that it will be ok'd with the condition that the script is approved by them. In effect the military have the right to alter the script so that the military is not shown in a negative light. This inevitably happens. The producers aren't happy with the situation as it means that they cannot make movies how they want them to be, they are all in effect, government approved.

Hence we get the movies that we do, as it would be well nigh impossible for a war movie to be made otherwise.

At the end of the day, it is an action movie, rather than a documentary. As one newspaper critic pointed out, Brad Pitt appears as a muscle bound hunk, whereas in reality tank crews were just underfed ordinary guys who would never have been near a gym.

I will never forget sitting down in the drivers seat in a Challenger at Bovington, jeez that is a near vertical drop into a compartment the size of a biscuit tin. I asked the tank commander how on earth anyone gets out of there if the tank gets hit? He told me that he has seen a driver not only get out of there, but also climb out past the commander who was still sat above him and through the hatch. In his words 'Fear is a great motivator'.

On a lighter note, one could argue that as the movie was made in rural England...even finding one Tiger was a bit of a miracle!

I said it, it was me. As a patriotic Brit I get pretty peeved that so many films don't give any recognition to other nations contributions in WW2. I know Hollywood isn't the go to resource for historical accuracy but it's where the majority of the muggles with find out about these events so it would be nice to see a little more balance.

Edit: SPOILERS!

As for my niggles with Fury, the idea that an experience combat leader like War Daddy would lead a troop of Shermans over an open field knowing they're attacking a Tiger head on was just ridiculous and ruined the characters reputation in my eyes. He seemed quite happy to give his men up as cannon fodder rather than use his cunning to defeat the enemy, which would've been a much better theme and uphold his character. The Tiger and field guns seem to miss a lot of shots, every account of tank warfare I've read puts so much emphasis on the importance of that first shot and that you're extremely lucky to get a chance at a 2nd. But above all the idea that 300 SS troops equipped with panzershreks could not hit or destroy a single immobile tank was just plane stupid. And the way they just hung around waiting to be shot like red Indians in a 50's Western film was insulting to my intelligence and the reputation of the enemy. Surely being able to defeat a cunning and capable enemy in the face of such odds would've been a more satisfying ending. The idea that the crew wouldn't leave their tank even with impending certain death was just wrong! The books I've read on the subject all montion the readiness of the crews to jump out of a tank once it's hit, especially in the case of a Sherman with its reputation to brew up.

Overall I thought it was a great looking and well executed film that was let down by bad writing and a piss poor ending. Surely they could've found a real story to follow?

seen fury ,, a good action film, though I wondered why the commanding officer of the Germans would readily sacrifice his men against a already disabled tank , and not just bypass the tank leaving a couple of snipers to deal with the crew when they eventually came out

panzer3 wrote:seen fury ,, a good action film, though I wondered why the commanding officer of the Germans would readily sacrifice his men against a already disabled tank , and not just bypass the tank leaving a couple of snipers to deal with the crew when they eventually came out

It was apparently common practice to do exactly that, I also recall the WW2 tale of a Tiger crew whose tank had been blown into a ditch whilst advancing on the Russian troops. The Russians then advanced, so the Tiger crew closed all of the hatches and stayed sat in their tank. Thousands of Russians marched straight past what they assumed was an abandoned wreck. After a couple of days the tank crew realised that it was either starve to death or go down fighting, so they simply opened fire on the passing convoys. They didn't last long.