(Fury (the movie)

[GaryS]

Then it would be part of the back story and they'd likely bring that fact out by having one of the other characters, maybe a minor one, ask where he got the German weapon.

One thing I found ironic in a silly way was that they murdered a German soldier who was wearing a GI coat. Meanwhile, the Fury crew had German weapons, a German helmet, a couple of German jackets, and I think one guy was wearing an Iron Cross.

The final battle sequence had a video game feel to it, not a movie battle feel.

Even though they ran out of ammunition and had to reload at points, the line of fire of the assistant driver's 30 cal machine gun seem like it extended around 180 degrees.

As someone else pointed out, the part about Waffen SS troops not being able to knock out a tank with about a dozen of them armed with Panzerfaust was ridiculous.

The battle scenes in Band of Brothers and Saving Private Ryan were much more realistic. Fury depended overly on CGI graphics and gratuitous gore.

Has anybody who has ever seen The Longest Day or Tora! Tora! Tora! not figured out that a lot of people died in combat during the real events?

One could also argue that they didn't show him sourcing ammo from before the movie started. There was almost half a million made and they were in use for 2 years during the war. There's a lot of stuff they don't show. You almost never see people going to the bathroom or even sleeping. I mean we do sleep at least a few hours a day. To be realistic the movie should last at least a week. Otherwise it's just Hollywood, where reality doesn't matter.

 

[the ringo kid]

Its amazing to see who likes what, and some of those what's are good movies, only tobe disliked by another. II'm not talking about anyone here but--case in point-American Sniper. I know a guy on another site who likes any and everything sniper related, and he didn't care for Amer Sniper. I saw it five times in the theater, and thought it was easily some of Eastwood's best work. I liked Fury for the pure fiction it was, and thought Unbroken, was flawless.

 

[6thtexas]

I liked the movie for the most part, but all during it I was wondering where was the air corps. By April 1945 the Allies had total air supremacy. I would think once a Tiger or those Waffen SS troops were spotted they would have had a P-47 or a Typhoon on them before they could spit.

 

[SmokeStack Lightning]

I'm wearing my "Fury" t-shirt, today. Got it for free at the theater.

I thunk "Inglourious Basterds" was better.

However, the real life crews inside those out-gunned, insufficient armored, gasoline fueled Shermans had nads the size of basketballs.

 

[44Steve]

Hi, Steve here. Did anybody notice that the fury tank, was a -8 sherman . Its gun is big enough to penitrate a tiger one`s front armour at a 1000 yards. Same gun as a M-18 tank destroyer.

 

[Arik]

Geeeeeeez! Give it a break. These movies are made as entertainment for audiences that for the most part have no real knowledge of WWII and weapons used. Hollywoods come a long way since movies like Patton where American tanks represented as German armor came swarming down the Kasserine Pass. I saw Fury months ago but it seems like the Tiger had "Zimmerit" anti magnetic mine putty all over it. Pretty good attention to detail. When the American column first set out and the Sherman was knocked out by a 12 yr old an American jumped out of the tank engulfed in flames and was able to unholster his .45, raise it to his head and shoot himself. Super human ability which could never happen. Most of the movie was pretty entertaining with a lot of attention to detail. It was not meant as a documentary. When they met the SS column at the crossroad they would have survived about 2 mins, maybe.

This ^ 100%

Watch the the making of. They used a real tiger or whatever that was. And a real Sherman ...whichever the last model was with the bigger cannon. The Sherman stood in for some shots and the action was done by a mock up

 

[Shorty 45 MK2]

I kind of liked it but it felt like it was trying to hard at times. (if that makes sense.)

Saw American Sniper the other day and had read the book at least a year ago so can't remember all the detail it seemed like it was a good bit different from the book. Ok I guess.

 

[GaryS]

I knew it had the longer 76mm gun, but I thought that still wasn't able to penetrate a Tigers front armor. I thought it could penetrate the Panzer, which was far more common.

Good point about the P47 and other fighters that late in the war. At that point, fighters were roaming around the countryside destroying anything they saw on the ground that had military value. In fact, that was pretty much true by the time of D Day, at least outside of Germany itself.

Hi, Steve here. Did anybody notice that the fury tank, was a -8 sherman . Its gun is big enough to penitrate a tiger one`s front armour at a 1000 yards. Same gun as a M-18 tank destroyer.

 

[JcMack]

The Tiger 1 still had the fault of it's predecessors. The frontal armor (glacis plate) was still too vertical in design and the turret to body mating offered "shot traps" under the main gun. The Germans copied the T34 design in the Panther and Tiger II and they had better survival rates.

 

[Kernel Crittenden]

I find it very unrealistic that a US GI would be using an MP43!

The GI in this photo might disagree.......

 

[UncleEd]

Kernel,

Regarding "crossovers" of weapons, I understand some Germans liked the Sten submachine gun because of its magazine loading to the side.

Not really a crossover, but I knew an old German who served in the WWII German army. He then came to the US, joined the US army and ended up in Korea.

A gun store lounger said to him one day, "Bet you missed your Mauser" instead of the Garand. And his reply, "Are you crazy?"

 

[Arik]

Kernel,

Regarding "crossovers" of weapons, I understand some Germans liked the Sten submachine gun because of its magazine loading to the side.

Not really a crossover, but I knew an old German who served in the WWII German army. He then came to the US, joined the US army and ended up in Korea.

A gun store lounger said to him one day, "Bet you missed your Mauser" instead of the Garand. And his reply, "Are you crazy?"

The Germans like to use a lot of captured weapons. On the western front they like the Sten and they already made ammo for it. On the eastern front they liked using PPSH41 and PPS43 and even had a lot of them rechamebered to 9mm

 

[LostintheOzone]

I just watched it on You Tube of all places.

I'm not much of a movie critic looking for factual situations and correct props. I look mostly at the performance of the actors and how believable they can make the situation seem. I don't believe any of them won any awards but they did a pretty good job in that movie.

The underlying message I think was how people come to grips with death and challenges. The sarge had a personal grudge match going on with the SS and the recruit ironically survived the whole thing.

 

[WardenRoss]

I really enjoyed the Fury movie.

"Best job I ever had!"

 

[williamlayton]

The really sad part of war is that civilians think our guys did not get angry and act out.
That is very much a propaganda thing.
Blessings

 

[Kinman]

Things happen in war that people who have never been through it would never understand. Its the major reason most vets never open up around people that haven't been through it, folks just can't wrap their heads around some of the stuff that happens. Hollywood plays into that stuff and hypes up the drama, hoping to get people's emotions going which ends up paying big dividends at the block office.
I thought HBO did a terrific job on Band of Brothers as well as The Pacific, I also enjoyed Private Ryan. I think they did a good job portraying the lives of those experiencing combat for the first time and getting tougher, as well as the attitudes of the "professional" type soldiers that were battle hardened and had "the attitude".
I have no interest in watching "The Sniper" and although I do understand the loss of this fine soldier I cannot justify his actions as heroic simply because he took out a certain number of enemy combatants in his military career, he was simply doing his job. Some of the helicopter pilots and bombers during any of the recent campaigns killed more enemy troops, it just wasn't as personal as watching the guy take a **** while you blow his brains out.
When it comes to pure entertainment I found "The inglorious *******s" a huge hit...I loved the bar scene when all hell broke out when the Gestapo agent caught the Brit using the forefinger for the symbol one...you'd have to understand German to catch that one and I dislike explaining everything to my wife in the middle of a movie.

 

[the ringo kid]

Geeeeeeez! Give it a break. These movies are made as entertainment for audiences that for the most part have no real knowledge of WWII and weapons used. Hollywoods come a long way since movies like Patton where American tanks represented as German armor came swarming down the Kasserine Pass. I saw Fury months ago but it seems like the Tiger had "Zimmerit" anti magnetic mine putty all over it. Pretty good attention to detail. When the American column first set out and the Sherman was knocked out by a 12 yr old an American jumped out of the tank engulfed in flames and was able to unholster his .45, raise it to his head and shoot himself. Super human ability which could never happen. Most of the movie was pretty entertaining with a lot of attention to detail. It was not meant as a documentary. When they met the SS column at the crossroad they would have survived about 2 mins, maybe.

This is an interesting site. It includes info on Captain Wittmann the most decorated armor ace in WWII.

Home of Achtung Panzer - Search for Panzers, Halftracks, Assault Guns, Artillery, Armored Cars, and other vehicles of the Wehrmacht

When I was in Germany, I met the woman who was going to marry Hauptsturmfuhrer Michael Wittmann. Sadly, all of his awards are now in a private museum and will never be seen by the public.

 

[ChuckS1]

I agree with GaryS. "Band of Brothers" is my favorite, followed by "Saving Private Ryan". Something about "Fury" just didn't seem right and while I generally enjoyed it as a nice diversion, I never felt that it had the ring of reality and truth about it.

While "Saving Private Ryan" was a good movie, I always thought it was far fetched that the Chief of Staff of huge Army would send in a rescue mission for a single soldier. Especially since the 101st Airborne was pulled into reserve the first week of July and sent back to England.

 

[rdcl]

I thought "Fury" was......so-so.

I only watched it because I knew the film featured a real working tiger tank (#131). As a matter of fact, the world's ONLY operable tiger 1.

Russ

 

[soFlaNative]

While "Saving Private Ryan" was a good movie, I always thought it was far fetched that the Chief of Staff of huge Army would send in a rescue mission for a single soldier. Especially since the 101st Airborne was pulled into reserve the first week of July and sent back to England.

May be a fictional representation of the "Sole Survivor Policy" adopted by the War Dept. after the botched S&R mission where the Sullivan brothers were aboard the Juneau when it sank after being torpedoed.