Fury

[Elroy Blue]

It was ludicrous because it was like something out of Scooby Doo. It was a silly Hollywood attempt to include some 'action', that just didn't work.

[Mastodon2]

Elroy Blue said:

It was ludicrous because it was like something out of Scooby Doo. It was a silly Hollywood attempt to include some 'action', that just didn't work.

Even though it's a legitimate armoured warfare tactic that was actually used in WWII?

[Elroy Blue]

. Getting behind the an enemy equipped with superior armour was indeed a legitimate tactic. Unfortunately they tended, to be more than five feet away at the time.

[Mastodon2]

Short range engagements did happen though, despite the trend towards longer and longer effective ranges on guns, for obvious reasons.

Still, I can tell you're a tanker of top repute, what would you have done? No cover, little hope of a frontal penetration with any of your ammo types on board and only a matter of time until one of the Tiger's 88mm shells goes through your front glacis, how would you survive?

[Elroy Blue]

Mastodon2 said:

Short range engagements did happen though, despite the trend towards longer and longer effective ranges on guns, for obvious reasons.

Still, I can tell you're a tanker of top repute, what would you have done? No cover, little hope of a frontal penetration with any of your ammo types on board and only a matter of time until one of the Tiger's 88mm shells goes through your front glacis, how would you survive?

I really don't want to disappoint you. But you do realise it was a film and not a documentary don't you.

[Mastodon2]

Elroy Blue said:

I really don't want to disappoint you. But you do realise it was a film and not a documentary don't you.

I do - the last 20 minutes of the film prove that. But still, you have piqued my interest now, so I'm keen to hear the moves in your playbook that would have saved you in Wardaddy's shoes.

[Elroy Blue]

Mastodon2 said:

I do - the last 20 minutes of the film prove that. But still, you have piqued my interest now, so I'm keen to hear the moves in your playbook that would have saved you in Wardaddy's shoes.

I think you need to go back to your Xbox.

(But if you're asking, I'd ask the scriptwriter to write a scene that was somewhat credible)

Edited by Elroy Blue on Wednesday 5th November 21:53

[Mastodon2]

Elroy Blue said:

I think you need to go back to your Xbox.

I'm on it now, cheers. Please though, if you have any other ideas on what you'd do other than stting your kegs and waiting to die, feel free to share them. You do seem to be basing your dislike of the movie on something which as it turns out, you can't actually justify. What a shame that a "ludicrous Hollywood action sequence" is your only hope for survival in that situation.

[spikey78]

Jeez mate, relax! It's a film, some people's opinion is its not a very good one.

[joema]

If you state an opinion you should be prepared to explain it.
I'm interested. If you know what should have happened please say.

[XJ Flyer]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEeQPUp5VTY

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj0AzL95Weg 20.18

Having decided to wait until the film is released on video I'm not sure of the content of the scene being discussed.However I'd have hoped that it would have gone along the lines of the scenario shown in the documentary posted above.In which to keep it real and in respect of all those who didn't return the crew that we've got to know throughout the film are all finally taken out with no survivors.Having been one of those sacrificed on the idea that ( with the exception that being petrol powered made any difference to survival ) an inferior cheap mass produced death trap always won out ( eventually ) by weight of numbers.However I'm guessing that all might have been felt as too inconvenient in regards to the US Hollywood agenda.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Thursday 6th November 03:57

[Blaster72]

XJ Flyer said:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEeQPUp5VTY

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj0AzL95Weg 20.18

Having decided to wait until the film is released on video I'm not sure of the content of the scene being discussed.However I'd have hoped that it would have gone along the lines of the scenario shown in the documentary posted above.In which to keep it real and in respect of all those who didn't return the crew that we've got to know throughout the film are all finally taken out with no survivors.Having been one of those sacrificed on the idea that ( with the exception that being petrol powered made any difference to survival ) an inferior cheap mass produced death trap always won out ( eventually ) by weight of numbers.However I'm guessing that all might have been felt as too inconvenient in regards to the US Hollywood agenda.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Thursday 6th November 03:57

Good documentaries there thanks and fit in well with the action in the movie.

Probably best to actually watch the movie first though before second guessing any Hollywood "agenda"

[DMN]

Blaster72 said:

Good documentaries there thanks and fit in well with the action in the movie.

Probably best to actually watch the movie first though before second guessing any Hollywood "agenda"

XJ_Tinfoiler is an expert at outing conspiracys.

[Killer2005]

Brilliant

[Veeayt]

I these Shermans were Fireflies, that would have been different

[probably chalk]

The great thing about film as an art form is that it reaches so many people and polarises opinion (two great things).

I saw Fury earlier in the week and thought it, on the whole, dreadful and it sent me straight to my Band of Brothers boxed set for a reminder of how these things should be done. While the mud, grime and fear came across very well and the battle scenes were fantastically realised, it's a truism to say that you can't make a good film without a good script and this film did not have a good script. In fact, in places, the cod philosophy from Wardaddy verged on the risible.

The characterisations were also a bit "A-team" as others have said. Of course there are eccentrics in life (see the interesting Wikipedia Articles thread in the Lounge) but to put three very eccentric characters in the same tank - Wardaddy, Bible and Coon-Ass (Gordo was relatively normal) just wasn't believable. If it has, in fact, managed to make the truth seem unbelievable then that is very poor indeed. Speaking of which, wasn't the average tank commander in WW2 twentysomething? Brad Pitt, good though he is, is way too old for his role.

If you want a believable tank movie, try this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanon_(2009_film)

[Siko]

Yes Lebanon is an excellent film.

Just got back from watching this and must admit, despite being a tank saddo I was slightly disappointed. For me it was a cross between 'Where Eagles Dare' and 'Inglorious bds'. Both great films which I really enjoyed, but Fury is done so well and mostly extremely realistically, that it's a shame it resorts to outlandish incidents to spice the film up. The scene with the Tiger and the end scene just spoiled a potentially great movie IMO. All American heroes skittling over mindless German automaton Nazi robots mindlessly walking towards the front of a broken down tank 7/10 but could have been 9/10.

[EarlOfHazard]

There's a film called The Beast - that I think's a good film.
It's about a Russian tank that gets lost and is hunted by Afghan rebels.

[IroningMan]

The average range for tank-to-tank engagements in WW2 was something like 200m - otherwise known as bugger-all.

[XJ Flyer]

IroningMan said:

The average range for tank-to-tank engagements in WW2 was something like 200m - otherwise known as bugger-all.

Sadly for allied tank crews that was more like the average effective range of a Sherman's gun against a Tiger in most scenarios.Which is why the Firefly and Comet were so badly needed for tank v tank engagements.

While the Germans obviously weren't going by such thinking in the form of the 88mm and the carnage it caused to Germany's opponents from North Africa to Russia.