65Whelen
Member
Watched the WWII movie Fury with Brad Pitt. Can anyone ID the S&W revolver he carried through out the movie?
-
Forum Update: We've upgraded the software to improve security, performance, and the overall experience.
👉 Read why we made the change | Support the Forum
Fury
- Thread starter 65Whelen
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
OLDSTER
Member
Like 6518John said; and with "sweetheart" grips
Last edited:
That's a good movie. Made me realize that Pitt is a fine actor.
'Best job I ever had...' has now become my mantra in retirement.
Man, I do like that movie!
Never cared for Brad, but he nailed his character in Fury.
Never cared for Brad, but he nailed his character in Fury.
THE PILGRIM
Member
Absalom
SWCA Member, Absent Comrade
“Fury” is a weird one:
Very well made and acted as a movie. The authentic equipment is great, especially using the original Tiger from the Bovington tank museum.
But, no doubt for dramatic effect, all the battles are tactically so nonsensically staged that your eyes hurt from rolling.
Very well made and acted as a movie. The authentic equipment is great, especially using the original Tiger from the Bovington tank museum.
But, no doubt for dramatic effect, all the battles are tactically so nonsensically staged that your eyes hurt from rolling.
dasnake
Member
For me
I’ve always liked his movies, fury is great, others were legends of the fall, inglorious *******s, once upon a time in hooeyweird, meet joe black, Benjamin button, lots of choices, nice guy too.
I’ve always liked his movies, fury is great, others were legends of the fall, inglorious *******s, once upon a time in hooeyweird, meet joe black, Benjamin button, lots of choices, nice guy too.
Agreed, so ridiculous, but still great action to watch; man movie.
bigwheelzip
Absent Comrade
The boys and I really like Fury. Good movie. The girls less so.
Agree mostly, especially at the end when they were immobilized, wouldn't have lasted 30 minutes in that situation.
But I thought the ambush by the Tiger was pretty tactically sound, especially the use of WP... but I was never a tanker!
Agree mostly, especially at the end when they were immobilized, wouldn't have lasted 30 minutes in that situation.
But I thought the ambush by the Tiger was pretty tactically sound, especially the use of WP... but I was never a tanker!
Absalom
SWCA Member, Absent Comrade
That fight was excitingly filmed; I’ve re-run and watched it many more times than the entire movie
The basic concept was correct: compared to the Sherman, the superiority of the Tiger in gun and armor, but deficiency in speed and maneuverability, made getting behind it the way to kill it.
In the real war, you just didn’t accomplish that by charging directly toward the Tiger yelling “Let’s go get him!”, but by laying smoke and using cover and terrain to get around it at a distance without offering the Tiger’s 88 gun a shot. Not as exciting to stage for a movie.
The same applies to the occasion where the tanks supported the infantry. Slowly rolling across an open field straight toward a well-concealed German position of high-velocity anti-tank guns would just have been very efficient suicide. All four Shermans would have been smoking hulls within 50 feet of leaving cover.
All through the war, specialized tank killers, both self-propelled tank destroyers and towed anti-tank guns, had a much higher kill rate on armor than battle tanks themselves.
Last edited:
